[PATCH] ehci-hcd: remove useless timeout

Aleksey Kuleshov rndfax at yandex.ru
Fri Mar 4 16:04:06 PST 2016

>>  Was it so necessary?
> Yes.
>>  Does Barebox really need this?
> Yes.

Oh, these are exhaustive answers, thank you :)

>>  Or it's just blindly following the rules made by Linux project?
> It's irrelevant if BB follows this practice blindly, or with extensive
> knowledge and understanding of all factors involved if the procedure
> involved is believed to be legally sound
>>  Do really small projects need to follow all such bureaucratic way rather than
>>  just growing up?
> Yes, project with identical licensing, regardless of their size, need
> to adhere to certain legal procedures in order to have a good case if
> they are ever in court.

So this means that every GPL'ed hello-world.c project should follow
Linux's rules "to have a good case if they are ever in court"?

And If think in this way then Barebox should create a Barebox Foundation,
hire a lawyer and wait until someone will sue them. But this is ridiculous, because
Barebox don't need this! That's why there is no Barebox Foundation with lawyer.

>>  What if git history magically disappears? Only authors written in files will be fixed,
>>  but all authors of patches will disappear as well. So this SOB field is only
>>  valid while "git log" gives you something to read.
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

SOB is just a matter of "git log".

>>  But that's for Linux - companies, billions of dollars... What about Barebox?
> Same license, same rules.

(see about GPL'ed hello-world.c)

> Aleksey, I am not really interested in continuing this discussion or
> trying to convince you to add SOB to your patch, so if any of the
> above explanations are insufficient for you, I am afraid we are going
> to have to agree to disagree on this subject.

I asked a simple question - still no use case of SOB in Barebox.

More information about the barebox mailing list